Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th Nov 2009 20:01 UTC
Google Google has just unveiled its Chrome OS operating system during a press event at the company's headquarters, and it's pretty much exactly what we expected it to be: a streamlined Linux kernel booting straight into the Chrome web browser. The code is available starting today.
Thread beginning with comment 395470
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Yeah!
by TBPrince on Thu 19th Nov 2009 20:25 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

Everyone of us will give it a try but let me say a few things based on what I saw in those presentations:

1) stating that a computer is mostly an interface to the Internet is VERY reductive. Stating that most of us will only use their computers to access the Internet is reductive as well. Those concepts already failed in the past.

2) it's amazing how we fought for YEARS IE and the way it was so tightly integrated with underline OS. We complained it was insecure, prone to errors, causing instability AND a problem under anti-trust point of view? No-one noticed that Chrome Browser is doing what IE 5.5/6 was able to do (directly or via ActiveX plugins) more than 10 years ago? The concept that EVERYTHING could live inside a browser and people could use that framework to develop extensions to their desktop (besides regular full-fledged applications) was part of the... Windows98 development process! Then we spent 11 years trying to remove IE from Windows and now... we build another browser-centric OS?? Life is irony for sure ...

3) According to what I read, Google has made lots of compromises in hardware, just the way Apple did. Basically, they will only support new systems and, probably, specifically crafted PCs. This inherently means they don't think they could aim to a large user base as they are kicking existing systems out as a start. Unfortunately, a PC is not a phone. And while a phone could be small PC, there's a lot of assumptions to do when you behave like this. If any of those is wrong, you could fail. After all, Google is no Apple and hasn't a loyal (yet small) user base.

Beside those considerations, I welcome this new system and I'm happy Google finally release its OS. Now they can prove what they can actually do ;-)

Welcome guys !

Reply Score: 8

RE: Yeah! - thoughts on two
by jabbotts on Thu 19th Nov 2009 21:02 in reply to "Yeah!"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Google does not hold majority share of the OS market so antitrust claims that the domination is being used to push Chromium on users is not equal to the past example. If Google had majority share of the OS market and was using that OS market share as a delivery method to push there browser then it would be a market concern. Where one company pushed a browser through a general use platform at the intended expense of other browser options, this is one company pushing an embedded browser for much less than general computing needs.

In terms of security, if chromium shows the poor decision making that most versions of IE have shown and Google can't/won't keep up with security patches then the deep integration of the browser may become an issue. The underlying OS layers seem pretty static outside of downloaded clean images/updates. Ultimately, we'll have to see what the research geniuses can do with it though.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Yeah!
by phoenix on Thu 19th Nov 2009 21:41 in reply to "Yeah!"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

1) stating that a computer is mostly an interface to the Internet is VERY reductive. Stating that most of us will only use their computers to access the Internet is reductive as well. Those concepts already failed in the past.


Just because it failed in the past doesn't mean it will fail again in the future.

Looking at my wife's computer usage, this would be almost perfect. The only apps she uses are Mozilla Firefox, WordPerfect, and Picassa. 95% of all time spent on the computer is spent in Firefox. The rest is typing up the odd document, and pulling images off the digicam to post online.

There are a lot more of these kinds of people out there then you seem to think there are.

Will this be perfect or even usable by everyone? Doubtful. But for a large portion of the computing public, it just might be.

2) it's amazing how we fought for YEARS IE and the way it was so tightly integrated with underline OS. We complained it was insecure, prone to errors, causing instability AND a problem under anti-trust point of view? No-one noticed that Chrome Browser is doing what IE 5.5/6 was able to do (directly or via ActiveX plugins) more than 10 years ago? The concept that EVERYTHING could live inside a browser and people could use that framework to develop extensions to their desktop (besides regular full-fledged applications) was part of the... Windows98 development process! Then we spent 11 years trying to remove IE from Windows and now... we build another browser-centric OS?? Life is irony for sure ...


The big difference is that this is not a general-purpose OS with a crappy browser pre-installed and "integrated" in such a way that a naughty website can control the host OS.

This is a special-purpose device. You don't have access to "the OS". You have access to a browser. Very big difference.

3) According to what I read, Google has made lots of compromises in hardware, just the way Apple did. Basically, they will only support new systems and, probably, specifically crafted PCs. This inherently means they don't think they could aim to a large user base as they are kicking existing systems out as a start. Unfortunately, a PC is not a phone. And while a phone could be small PC, there's a lot of assumptions to do when you behave like this. If any of those is wrong, you could fail. After all, Google is no Apple and hasn't a loyal (yet small) user base.


Again, this is not a general-purpose computer, running a general-purpose OS, that can be used to do anything. Why aren't you complaining that this vehemently about the Kindle, since it's really nothing more than Adobe Reader tightly integrated into the OS, only running on specific hardware?

Seriously, take a step back, and look at this from the viewpoint of a special-purpose device running a customised OS. Nothing too different from an iPhone or iPod Touch, except that instead of having native apps, it's all web apps.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Yeah!
by r_a_trip on Fri 20th Nov 2009 11:29 in reply to "Yeah!"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

To all the critics of TBPrince, I think you are too quick to declare Google clean.
TBPrince has a point, it is just looked at from the wrong angle.

This is not about a General Purpose OS provider, trying to pull in all web traffic through their dominant OS by bundling a browser (inferior or not), in a bid to keep their OS relevant. (Although I can appreciate the astuteness of TBPrince's line of thought that it is very ironic that people are cheering for a browser with integrated OS, while they vilified an OS with an integrated browser).

This is about a GIANT search and web applications provider, whose stated goal is to be the central hub in the organization of the worlds information, trying to push out new devices according to their own specifications which conveniently precludes doing any significant offline and local computing.

While right now Google's Chrome OS is merely a whiff of smoke trying to materialize, I can see problems down the road. The worlds computing now is not done through Chrome OS, but what if we just keep on cheering uncritically and someday 80% of computing is done through Google's devices? Let's see, Google Chrome OS, Google search, Google Scholar, Google Mail, Google Docs, Google Blogger, Google YouTube / Video, Google Picasaweb, Google Maps, Google News, Google Groups, Google Books, Google Calender, Google Reader, Google Translate, Google Sites, Google Talk.

See anything disturbing? Google spans the pallette of what could be needed for computing. Right now Google has to go through other platforms like Windows + IE, Mac OS X + Safari, Linux/BSD + smorgasbord of browsers, to deliver their Cloud Applications. If Chrome OS devices become dominant, they don't have to. They can even start augmenting the web in Google specific ways and not make the stuff open like SPDY. Although they could open it up anyways with impunity if they store all you digital life on their servers anyways.

I'm not saying "Google is Evil", I'm just saying that concentrating too much power in one place is inevitably going to have negative consequences somewhere.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Yeah!
by fridder on Fri 20th Nov 2009 22:03 in reply to "RE: Yeah!"
fridder Member since:
2007-11-03

You know what is COMPLETELY different than what Microsoft tried to do? This project is opensource! I don't think anyone appreciates how big a deal that little detail is.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE: Yeah!
by anomie on Tue 24th Nov 2009 23:18 in reply to "Yeah!"
anomie Member since:
2007-02-26

Unfortunately, a PC is not a phone. And while a phone could be small PC, there's a lot of assumptions to do when you behave like this. If any of those is wrong, you could fail.


I believe google is (cautiously?) gambling on the success of a new device, just a few notches above a phone.

Reply Parent Score: 2